01Facts
The petitioner brought a representative civil suit concerning Survey No. 1468/1, alleging that it was a cart track and seeking an injunction and restraint against granting patta to private parties.
p. 3 · ¶ 2–3The suit was decreed in his favour on 31 January 2020, and the defendants’ appeal was dismissed on 31 January 2024; whether a second appeal had been filed was not established before the Court.
p. 3 · ¶ 2–3The State’s instructions were that the land had originally been classified as a cart track but was erroneously entered as patta land during UDR in the names of private parties.
p. 4 · ¶ 4–5The Tahsildar had submitted a proposal to the District Revenue Officer (DRO) to correct the revenue record.
p. 4 · ¶ 4–5The petitioner sought a direction to remove the private respondents’ alleged encroachments.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the Court could direct removal of the alleged encroachments at the admission stage, given the revenue entry and uncertainty about whether a second appeal had been filed.
p. 4 · ¶ 6ii.2. Whether the DRO should decide the Tahsildar’s proposal to correct the UDR entry and, if the civil decree remained operative, correct the record before the Tahsildar proceeded against the alleged encroachments.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 703Law Applied
The Court stated that an erroneous UDR entry may be corrected only by the DRO and that there is no limitation period for making such a correction.
p. 5 · ¶ 7The DRO must act consistently with the findings of the jurisdictional civil court; if the petitioner’s decree remains in force, the DRO must correct the erroneous entry.
p. 5 · ¶ 7Following correction, the jurisdictional Tahsildar is to take action under the Land Encroachment Act to remove encroachments.
p. 5 · ¶ 704Reasoning
Although the civil suit had been decreed and the appeal dismissed, the Court could not assume at the admission stage that the decree had attained finality, particularly because the revenue record continued to show the land as patta land and the status of any second appeal was unclear.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3, 6It therefore directed the DRO to determine the Tahsildar’s pending correction proposal after giving notice to the private respondents.
p. 5 · ¶ 7The DRO must give effect to the civil court’s findings if the decree remains operative; only after a correction in the petitioner’s favour may the Tahsildar proceed under the Land Encroachment Act.
p. 5 · ¶ 705Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the DRO to pass a final order on the Tahsildar’s proposal within eight weeks of receiving the order, after putting the private respondents on notice.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–8If the DRO finds that the civil decree remains in force, the DRO must correct the UDR error.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–8The Tahsildar must then complete action to remove the encroachments within two months after a favourable final order by the DRO.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–8No costs were awarded.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–8Original Court PDF
KaliappanvsThe District Collector/Monit
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
